CM9 versus LC9! I have both.

[Pkersey2]

I purchased a new CM9 at the gun show on Saturday. I have had a Ruger LC9 for a while but do not shoot it anymore after about 100 rounds. What's going on?
The Ruger is MUCH better fit and finish and had only one feed issue. But...the trigger is terrible and the safety preventing the gun from firing without the magazine is unacceptable. It's a bit heavier and bigger too compared to the Kahr CM9. The wife could not hit anything with it due to the trigger.
So... I have been researching the CM9 for a while and based on feedback, did not know what to expect. I cleaned it yesterday with MPRO 7 oil and then racked it 200+ times prior to firing. It was really tight and sticky when cycling. Went to the range today and fired 4 different 115 gr FMJ brands "flawlessly".
I finished my session with three mags of Speer +P+ rounds. (Noticeably more potent, like a cannon) It would not chamber the first round via slingshot as they say. Maybe now it would with the break in complete. It is noticeably easier and smoother to rack the slide now.
Other than the mag base pinching my pinky it was very good. It IS difficult to disassemble but shoots great! If Kahr would redesign the mag it would be close to perfect. Note, I am a Glock guy but as we know, Glock is not there yet for a single stack 9mm. (I have a 19 and 26)
Ruger For Sale!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tundra5.7]

I have a CM9 and the wife has a LC9. She shoots the LC9 very well and likes it. I can shoot it just as well as the CM9 but I really have to concentrate on trigger control. I can accurately shoot the CM9 much faster and personally prefer it myself as well.

FWIW, the magazine disconnect safety can be removed on the LC9.

[Pkersey2]

Thanks. Truth be told I am hoping Glock comes with a single stack 9 that is no larger than the Ruger LC9. Will likely change if it is not too heavy, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GLOCKROCKER]

Congrats on the CM9. I too bought the LC9 not too long after they hit the shelves. Brought it home and tried to make myself like it. Horrible trigger, and I should have known I wouldn't warm up to the thumb safety or the mag disconnect, not to mention that ridiculous LCI flag on top. Put around 100 rounds through it and sold it. Shortest period of time I ever kept a firearm. I'm not bashing Ruger - I own 7 other models, but they sure made a turd out of something that could have been a nice pistol. My only "micro 9" is a CM9 now and I love it (I don't count the G26 as micro). I can "slingshot" chamber mine every time now after several hundred rounds. If Glock comes out with a single stack 9 I'll probably have one but I don't think my cm9 will go anywhere. ENJOY!

[Pkersey2]

The CM9 IS a pleasant surprise. For a subcompact 9 it is the smallest, lightest one on the market with decent quality. (I do NOT include Kel Tec as a quality pistol. Had a 32cal for one shot once a long time ago. First round jammed in the gun and it took 15 minutes and gunsmith to get it out. Back in the box it went! TRADED!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[clayflingythingy]

I am somewhat flabbergasted that your particular Ruger had a better fit and finish than the Kahr.

The Ruger LC series just aren't that well done.

I would state Kahr is heads and shoulders above the LC series Ruger's.

Obviously, YMMV. :)

[Bill K]

Glad you're happy with your new CM9.

For that pinky pinch issue... All my carries are pinky under the grip up tight against the mag base plate [P3AT, G26, PM9 & XDM 3.8 .45]. Give it a try.

[feedramp]

I have been doing in depth research over the past 4-5 months in serach of the smallest and slimmest 9mm pistol for summer carry.

My searches even included some of the higher priced pocket 9's, such as the Boberg and Rohrbaugh pistols. Both were high quality and precision made specimens, but for the asking price, there were better options.

Always one for quality, I never thought I'd be looking into a Kahr, but here I am, due to the slim profile, and excellent price of the Kahr CM9. Not to mention attention to detail.

My wife had the Ruger LCP. Never really got attached to it, as it was somewhat too small for the intended purpose, even for her hands.
I do have the Colt .380 Pocketlite, but for some reason still yearned for a small 9mm.

I also have two Glocks, the 19 and 23, both in Gen4, but I wanted something a little easier to carry when clothing was at a minimum.... :biggrin1:

[T0RMENT]

I love my CM9. Great feel, accurate, easily concealable, light, etc. I was carrying a Glock 30S prior and have now moved that to the home defense role and the Kahr is my EDC.

Great little EDC in a 9mm.

There is still an issue (broken follower) I'm having with the Kahr, but it should be corrected soon. Aside from this, I really love this pistol.

[Schriscoe]

The CM9 IS a pleasant surprise. For a subcompact 9 it is the smallest, lightest one on the market with decent quality. (I do NOT include Kel Tec as a quality pistol. Had a 32cal for one shot once a long time ago. First round jammed in the gun and it took 15 minutes and gunsmith to get it out. Back in the box it went! TRADED!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


With all due respect, you can't shoot a gun once and claim it's no good. So far my p3at is more reliable than my cm9.

That said, I like the lighter weight of the Kahr vs the ruger. Plus I think it looks better.

[97harley]

I have been doing in depth research over the past 4-5 months in serach of the smallest and slimmest 9mm pistol for summer carry.

My searches even included some of the higher priced pocket 9's, such as the Boberg and Rohrbaugh pistols. Both were high quality and precision made specimens, but for the asking price, there were better options.

Always one for quality, I never thought I'd be looking into a Kahr, but here I am, due to the slim profile, and excellent price of the Kahr CM9. Not to mention attention to detail.

My wife had the Ruger LCP. Never really got attached to it, as it was somewhat too small for the intended purpose, even for her hands.
I do have the Colt .380 Pocketlite, but for some reason still yearned for a small 9mm.

I also have two Glocks, the 19 and 23, both in Gen4, but I wanted something a little easier to carry when clothing was at a minimum.... :biggrin1:

I thought about a Boberg or Rohbraugh but couldn't find one to handle so I went with a PM9. I have to say I like my PM9 but have not compared it to either of those. I did shoot a Ruger LC9, hated the feel and also a Smith and Wesson Shield, it felt pretty good but went with the Kahr due to a better trigger.

[Tundra5.7]

I am somewhat flabbergasted that your particular Ruger had a better fit and finish than the Kahr.

The Ruger LC series just aren't that well done.

I would state Kahr is heads and shoulders above the LC series Ruger's.

Obviously, YMMV. :)

As I stated earlier, my wife has the Ruger LC9 and I have a Kahr CM9 so I can directly compare the two. I personally like and shoot the CM9 better...mainly because of the Kahr trigger. For me it is just a pleasure to shoot.

However, I don't see the Kahr as being head and shoulders above the Ruger. In fact, the Ruger has been more reliable thus far. My Kahr was breaking magazine followers and had to be sent back to the factory because the feed ramp was too long. Meanwhile the little Ruger just keeps banging away.

[Cubby]

I have both and wouldn't give up either one. They both work and that's the important thing! The LC9 is a softer shooter than the CM9. The CM9's trigger is better, but not by a lot. I'll keep them both. The CM9 is a better pocket gun, but I hardly ever carry that way....

[berettabone]

It's funny how different people react to different trigger pulls.......................IMHO the Ruger is terrible, and no comparison to a Kahr. Not to mention the sights.

[Papas1972]

I have a PM9 and an LC9, I love them both for very different reasons. I think the Ruger is a very well built gun, to some extent better then the CM9. The poly frames on the Ruger is better quality IMO, smoother, more polished and nicer. The slide, barrell and internals are no comparison, Kahr runs away with it, hands down. But I own the LC9 and two LCP's, I love them all. I just bought a P380 that should be here Monday, I'm very excited about this gun. Couldn't find one with night sights though, that was disappointing.

[cacacar]

When Ruger first came out with the LC9, I purchased one to replace my LCP. At the same time my wife bought a CM9. I took both to the range for break-in and was disappointed by the LC9's trigger and the way the Kahr's slide cut my thumb. The second time out I still disliked the trigger on the LC9 but the Kahr didn't cut me anymore and I noticed something....the trigger on the Kahr was better, no, much better then the LC9. The third time out and I traded the LC9 in on an MK9. Now a year or two later I'm waiting on my CW380 to replace the LCP. Funny how things change.

[Cubby]

For me a carry gun really needs one attribute, it should go bang every time that I pull the trigger! Both the LC9 and the CM9 do that.

[RainingAgain]

I have both and wouldn't give up either one. They both work and that's the important thing! The LC9 is a softer shooter than the CM9. The CM9's trigger is better, but not by a lot. I'll keep them both. The CM9 is a better pocket gun, but I hardly ever carry that way....

I bought both (PM9 and LC9) but SOLD both. The Ruger was reliable, easier to shoot well due to taming recoil somewhat better, but holy cow, that trigger was longer than Pinochio's nose.

FYI, it's not hard to modify the Ruger to eliminate the magazine safety. I prefer my guns without that "feature" too. I tolerate it in a range use 22LR.

I settled on a Nano for this size gun. Much better for me to shoot well and no pain when practicing with 100 rounds. It took 400 rounds to break-in and it wants 124 grain with some exceptions. My SD round is Federal Hydra Shok (P9HS1). 124 gr of course. When dressed for colder weather, I go with the G26 for its capacity...and its even easier to shoot well. YMMV.

[Cubby]

I bought both (PM9 and LC9) but SOLD both. The Ruger was reliable, easier to shoot well due to taming recoil somewhat better, but holy cow, that trigger was longer than Pinochio's nose.

FYI, it's not hard to modify the Ruger to eliminate the magazine safety. I prefer my guns without that "feature" too. I tolerate it in a range use 22LR.

I settled on a Nano for this size gun. Much better for me to shoot well and no pain when practicing with 100 rounds. It took 400 rounds to break-in and it wants 124 grain with some exceptions. My SD round is Federal Hydra Shok (P9HS1). 124 gr of course. When dressed for colder weather, I go with the G26 for its capacity...and its even easier to shoot well. YMMV.



My Daughter-in-law has a Nano, and she loves it! I don't mind the long trigger in a carry gun. In the heat of the moment, you aren't going to think about something like that. Just my opinion which doesn't mean anything except to me! Everyone is different, and that's a good thing!!!

[gmcjetpilot]

I read through the thread and I also have had both LC9 I bought new and then sold. I then first bought a Glock 26 Gen 4 and then bought a slightly used CM9. I was drawn to the looks and size of the CM9, although the Glock 26 was everything I needed (except being a thicker and heavier than CM9.)

The RUGER LC9 is a fantastic gun, and I would say it is better built than Kahr CM9. Reliability I'd give a slight edge to the LC9 but then again, I now have more trouble free rounds through the CM9 than LC9 when I sold it. This is just my opinion. You just don't hear of owners on Ruger forums complaining about the reliability or build or broken followers. Yes the LC9 trigger is long, stacking and the physical trigger shape is thin and so curved my finger landed on the pointy end of trigger. However Galloway precision makes a TON of LC9 trigger MOD parts for shorter/lighter/smoother trigger, with custom trick billet machined anodized triggers. Galloway was hampered by Ruger not supplying them with OEM trigger bars and trigger hammers to modify, so you had to send them stock parts for them to modify, making it impossible to go back to stock. Ruger would not sell these parts to anyone. That is now resolved. Galloway now makes their own parts outright 100%, which is good, so you can keep your stock parts stock. You need that if you ever have to send the gun to Ruger. If you send a modified gun to Ruger for repair, they will take the modified parts out, replace them, charge you and send it back. I did not want to go down the MOD road. One, it cost money. Why not just buy a gun that is right out the box. I got a Glock 26 and then the Kaher CM9 after the Ruger was sold. Last issue for me, was the small but possible liability of having a MOD "hair trigger" and legal do-do hitting the fan. The LC9 is a fairly long gun both in height and length. It is a very accurate gun and easy to shoot with some practice with the trigger. LC9 is bargain priced. It is a good value.

The CM9 is also a fantastic. Preaching to the choir, it is small gun for a 9mm, in the top 3 or 4 of smallest and lightest 9's. It is priced well but more than the LC9. I think the CM9 is a good looking and well built pistol, with room for some improvement. Stock sights suck compared to LC9's three dot sights, but that is easy to fix. The CM9 has a great trigger as-is stock. Reliability, I won't go there. I can say if I never read these forums, I would say the Kahr CM9 is reliable. I have about 400-450 rounds through my CM9 with no problems, not one. I do feel (just a gut opinion) the LC9 is more reliable and the Glock 26 is more reliable than the LC9, by the way it loads, goes into battery and fires. Cleaning the Kahr CM9 is easy enough, but sometimes I have issues getting the slid off and on, it hangs for some reason. I will take the blame, must be me. The LC9 and G26 both tear down and re-assembled easier. The Glock has the advantage of not having a separate slid pin like the Kahr and Ruger.

A stock Kahr vs. Mod LC9, I'd say the LC9 would be a better gun not withstanding the larger (no way to pocket) size of LC9 (which is what I wanted). The LC9 has 7 round magazine, Kahr 6 rounds, not a deal breaker for me. With the supplied pinky extension for the LC9 magazine, someone with a smaller hand could get all three fingers wrapped around the grip. I find on the hip the longer grip is harder to conceal then the length of the gun. The LC9 did not fill the bill and trigger MOD was out, so I went with CM9. I am glad I did.

If I could only have one gun, CM9 or LC9, it would be the Glock 26 Gen 4. The Glock reliability, short grip of the Glock, capability to hold 10 + 1, better trigger than Kahr, the Glock is a best for me, EXCEPT for being thicker and heavier. When I don't feel like the Glock 26, the Kahr CM9 is what I carry. The LC9 was just not the right fit, with the G26 and CM9 in the line-up. I think I have best of both worlds. BTW I have a Glock 19 magazine with X-sleeve that goes into the Glock 26 for 15 rounds.

[Tundra5.7]

I read through the thread and I also have had both LC9 I bought new and then sold. I then first bought a Glock 26 Gen 4 and then bought a slightly used CM9. I was drawn to the looks and size of the CM9, although the Glock 26 was everything I needed (except being a thicker and heavier than CM9.)

The RUGER LC9 is a fantastic gun, and I would say it is better built than Kahr CM9. Reliability I'd give a slight edge to the LC9 but then again, I now have more trouble free rounds through the CM9 than LC9 when I sold it. This is just my opinion. You just don't hear of owners on Ruger forums complaining about the reliability or build or broken followers. Yes the LC9 trigger is long, stacking and the physical trigger shape is thin and so curved my finger landed on the pointy end of trigger. However Galloway precision makes a TON of LC9 trigger MOD parts for shorter/lighter/smoother trigger, with custom trick billet machined anodized triggers. Galloway was hampered by Ruger not supplying them with OEM trigger bars and trigger hammers to modify, so you had to send them stock parts for them to modify, making it impossible to go back to stock. Ruger would not sell these parts to anyone. That is now resolved. Galloway now makes their own parts outright 100%, which is good, so you can keep your stock parts stock. You need that if you ever have to send the gun to Ruger. If you send a modified gun to Ruger for repair, they will take the modified parts out, replace them, charge you and send it back. I did not want to go down the MOD road. One, it cost money. Why not just buy a gun that is right out the box. I got a Glock 26 and then the Kaher CM9 after the Ruger was sold. Last issue for me, was the small but possible liability of having a MOD "hair trigger" and legal do-do hitting the fan. The LC9 is a fairly long gun both in height and length. It is a very accurate gun and easy to shoot with some practice with the trigger. LC9 is bargain priced. It is a good value.

The CM9 is also a fantastic. Preaching to the choir, it is small gun for a 9mm, in the top 3 or 4 of smallest and lightest 9's. It is priced well but more than the LC9. I think the CM9 is a good looking and well built pistol, with room for some improvement. Stock sights suck compared to LC9's three dot sights, but that is easy to fix. The CM9 has a great trigger as-is stock. Reliability, I won't go there. I can say if I never read these forums, I would say the Kahr CM9 is reliable. I have about 400-450 rounds through my CM9 with no problems, not one. I do feel (just a gut opinion) the LC9 is more reliable and the Glock 26 is more reliable than the LC9, by the way it loads, goes into battery and fires. Cleaning the Kahr CM9 is easy enough, but sometimes I have issues getting the slid off and on, it hangs for some reason. I will take the blame, must be me. The LC9 and G26 both tear down and re-assembled easier. The Glock has the advantage of not having a separate slid pin like the Kahr and Ruger.

A stock Kahr vs. Mod LC9, I'd say the LC9 would be a better gun not withstanding the larger (no way to pocket) size of LC9 (which is what I wanted). The LC9 has 7 round magazine, Kahr 6 rounds, not a deal breaker for me. With the supplied pinky extension for the LC9 magazine, someone with a smaller hand could get all three fingers wrapped around the grip. I find on the hip the longer grip is harder to conceal then the length of the gun. The LC9 did not fill the bill and trigger MOD was out, so I went with CM9. I am glad I did.

If I could only have one gun, CM9 or LC9, it would be the Glock 26 Gen 4. The Glock reliability, short grip of the Glock, capability to hold 10 + 1, better trigger than Kahr, the Glock is a best for me, EXCEPT for being thicker and heavier. When I don't feel like the Glock 26, the Kahr CM9 is what I carry. The LC9 was just not the right fit, with the G26 and CM9 in the line-up. I think I have best of both worlds. BTW I have a Glock 19 magazine with X-sleeve that goes into the Glock 26 for 15 rounds.

Very good reply but many of the differences will boil down to personal preferences.

You mentioned the sights as being better on the Ruger. I actually prefer the Kahr sights than the small 3 dot sights on the Ruger. I find them to be accurate and very quick to acquire. For me, the Ruger sights take longer to line up as they seem smaller than the Trijicon and Glock night sights I'm used to.

You mentioned price....In my area, I see Kahr CM's on "sale" quite often in the $350-375 range and the LC9's(when they have em) are usually a tad bit more and sell quickly.

[kahrlwallace]

I'd like to defend the Kahr on takedown difficulty. I too thought it was difficult, but like everything on a Kahr it ages well, and after being "broke in" my cm9 breaks down smoothly. The "button" on the takedown pin needs a good workout.

[jocko]

Is not the LC9 not stainless????

Big difference if there is..Just sayin

I have zero issues with the lc9, so don't take me wrong. Its a tad heavier,trigger system compared to kahr just sucks for smoothness. Price points for each is to close to debate over. If I couldn't stick a PMJ9 in my pocket, I would look at the lc9:blah:

One can certainly google up Ruger lc9 issues and get an ear full of their issues t. Its not just kahrs guys. Ruger has had some issues to, They are a super great company but they are still man made.

My Ruger lcp was in the 50K recall when they first came out with an exact copy of the sh!t gun kel tek made and instead of Ruger designing their own, they just copied the kel tek and had the same issues kel tek had, onlyruger stepped up tothe plate and recalled all 50K of them. I sold it down the road, but after I got it back it was flawless.

It is easy to sit here and pontificate about Rugers etc compared to Kahrs etc, but one should do his homework o both guns and then make his decision.

I like a striker fired gun over a hammer gun, just my 21 cents. Basically the lc9 and the cm9 are totaly different utter than the bullet. Give me stainless over a blued finsih gun any day, when ur gonna possably pocket carry it..Ruger I think would kill to have as smooth a trigger system as kahr has..

I think sometimes most gun owners dont really appreciate the kahrs for what they are. there are today many sub compact 9' outthere and basically noe are as light as the kahrs ad as small. Close on both but still not bragging rights. I will exclude the Rohrbar R9 for size and liteness, it has all utters beat tohell but it is one picky and one pricey S.O.B. to

Sometimes being maybe 3 ounces heavier means alot in producing a gun that is just easier to handle, easier to make 100% reliabe yadda yadda.

I can tellyou my PMJ9 tha tI have had alot of custom work done on it (see jocko's custom PM9) on this forum. ) that loaded with powerball weights 18 ounces. Pretty hard to beat that sh!t IMO, ad the worthless POS has over 32K rounds through it... Just sayin:Amflag2: